Some remarks on Blacks and Jews: MP3, 4min

hen it comes to Israel, there are in the final analysis essentially two lines of thought: (a) The Israelis are right in just about all they do when it comes defending their state.  (b) The Israelis are wrong in just about all they do when it comes to defending their state.  For those who hold (b), the view seems to be that it is Palestinians who have the honor of being right in just about all they do in defending themselves against the injustices of Israel.  It would seem that some version of (a) applies to Alan Dershowitz and that some version of (b) applies to Norman Finkelstein. 

My own view is strikingly simple, perhaps even Solomonic: surely neither Dershowitz or Finkelstein is right.  Jews are not saints.  Palestinians are not saints.  If there is any claim about mortals that is incontrovertibly true, the claim that I have just made about Jews and Palestinians is precisely such a claim.  So I am weary of anyone who talks about either Palestinians or Jews as if they were saints. 

Accordingly, the fact that Dershowitz, a quite capable mind cannot see anything of substance, even if requires considerable reformulation, in what Finkelstein says, tells me that his stance is more ideologically driven that not.  Likewise, the fact that Finkelstein, also a quite capable mind cannot see anything of substance, even if requires considerable reformulation, in what Finkelstein says, tells me that his stance is more ideologically driven that not.

In a like manner, I maintain that those who blindly stand by one author-scholar or the other is also more driven by ideology than not. 

What I have just said should be not be confused with a different claim, namely that the weight of evidence equally favors the views of each author-scholar.  I assume that one side is more likely to be right than not, though I shall not make any attempt in this essay to make that case—as that is not the point of this entry.

I mean to make a quite different point and criticism of both, namely that something akin to egomania seems to have infected them both.  Each would seem to be more interested in denouncing the other than seeing anything worthwhile in what the other says. 

It is next to impossible that Dershowitz has not said anything about Israel that merits consideration on the part of Finkelstein.  Similarly, it is next to impossible that Finkelstein has not said anything about Palestinians that merits consideration on the part of Dershowtiz.  But if anything it clear, it is clear that neither of them is interested in making that small gesture of goodwill. 

Let me turn now to the Holocaust.  Now, even truth typically needs to be presented in the right way if there is to be any chance that those being criticized will be receptive to it.  That is, it is perfectly possible to tell the truth in an offensive way.  Contrast "Your tie needs adjusting" with "Your appearance sucks".

Now, as a logical point the following is true: it is no more impossible for Jews to use the Holocaust in unsavory ways than it is for blacks to use American Slavery (and racism) in unsavory ways.  I know a great many Jews who think that this is unquestionably the case with blacks.  For many people, Jews and non-Jews alike: Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are both quintessential examples of black folks doing just that.  One the one hand, from this truth in real-time about some blacks with respect to American Slavery, it does not follow at all that any Jew has in fact done the same with respect to the Holocaust.  On the other, given the modest assumption that Jews do not have a greater claim to sainthood than blacks, it is simply wrong to bristle at the very idea that a Jew might have faltered in this way as if the assertion were being made about Moses himself. 

Finklestein gives the impression, perhaps unwittingly, that the only things that Jews are interested in when it comes to the Holocaust is extorting money.  Dershowtiz’s response gives the impression, perhaps unwittingly, that when it comes to the Holocaust Jews can do no wrong.  Both positions are absolutely untenable. 

The reader will notice that I have been able to criticize both authors simply by being completely even handed in the application of something that goes by the name of commonsense. 

It intrigues me enormously that on the issue of Israel and the Holocaust, Dershowitz and Finkelstein seem to go after one another as if nothing else in the world were going on.  Below, I shall give an example that that applies to each of them.

In his book The Holocaust Industry, Finkelstein criticizes Elie Wiesel for his high lecture fees.  While I am not privy to what sorts of fees Wiesel can command, I do know that all sorts of people are paid quite high fees for their lectures.  Former President Clinton has made millions of dollars lecturing for, in some cases, righteous and just causes.  So, it is not at all obvious to me why Wiesel should have to accept less just because he is talking about the Holocaust.  I know two blacks who command substantial fees when talking about the black experience: Cornel West and Henry Louis Gates.  Perhaps all are at fault here.  But for Finkelstein to single out Wiesel, while ignoring the common practice, is simply wrong. 

Turning to a different example: One of the painful things about many charity organizations is that typically only a small percentage of the money donated actually seems to go towards the goal in question.  A large portion of the donated money goes towards paying the 6-figure salaries of the CEOs.  This is disheartening, in fact.  Presumably, Dershowitz knows this.  So why on earth would he, or anyone else, expect that organizations pertaining to the Holocaust would be the exception to the rule.  It is downright disingenuous to carry on as if when it comes to the Holocaust such a thing never happens or that it merits special justification. 

That both authors are fighting so furiously against one another all the while ignoring the reality of practices that are constantly going on around them tells me that neither is really much concerned with truth here, but with exercising power and domination over the other.  To this end, both have been rather oblivious to the harm that they, as Jewish icons, are doing, both to one another and in terms of modeling woefully inappropriate behavior to Jews and non-Jews alike.  Recall the Los Angeles riots where in the name of moral outrage, blacks did enormous damage to one another’s property.  Blacks are not perfect.  Jews are not perfect.  I think that I am on solid ground in that assertion. 

The real pity is not so much that neither group of individuals is perfect, since that has always been the case.  No, the real pity is that two very gifted individuals, who have a lot to offer, albeit in quite different ways, have essentially become committed to being vicious towards one another.  And this they have done in the name of doing good.  Most poignantly, history shows that evil often takes this very form. 

To Dershowitz and Finkelstein, I say to each, without hesitation and standing on very solid moral ground: Je vous accuse.